A&H

Utd vs real

I have to admit, when I first saw it (at real time) my first thought was "that's a red". Foot high, leg up over waist height, studs showing etc. I can understand the feelings regarding keeping it 11v11 and all that, but that is not the refs job (IMHO). I also get the argument about Nani watching the ball, but as Roy Keane put it, he is not the only player on the pitch and had to take into account that other players may be near by. Failing to look around him could be construed as reckless. If the high foot had not made contact you may have grounds for a yellow for Dangerous Play, but if that play is deemed to be "dangerous" and it then makes contact, how can it not be a red?
I have to admit that, while the Man Utd players may have been mightily p'ed off (understandably or otherwise) the behaviour of some of them at the end was nothing short of disgusting. Finger pointing in the ref's face, hand clapping right in his face - outrageous. Fair play to the ref for just standing there. I hope that all goes in his match report and there are some sanctions - somehow I doubt it though. Who would take up the whistle?
 
The Referee Store
We're all talking about the referee not bottling it here, but let's remember. Mr. Cakir is one of FIFA's most highly rated officials in the ranks of the 24 elite referees AND he referees domestically in Turkey, which must be one of the most hostile countries a referee could ever do his job in. If anyone was expecting him to "play safe" and go yellow just for the sake of keeping players, fans and pundits on side, rather than doing what was technically the correct decision while under observation, then they are quite terribly mistaken.

The referee's courage in this situation in my opinion is something we all need if any of us aspire to be anywhere near his level in our careers.
 
Lol Roy keane is a wind up merchant. He seems to enjoy the stirring more than anything else.

I find this incident very interesting because it appears it is borderline. Definitely at least yellow, about 50% thinking enough for red. This is one of the reasons I love refereeing. Lots of room for discussion and interpretations.
 
Yes, but for the same foul, when A. Taylor sent off Darren Gibson and Carlton Cole for exactly the same challenge, the FA rescinded the reds, so they didn't think that challenge was worthy of a red, and the laws are the same domestically and internationally, so surely it shouldn't have been a red? Just looking at a past incident which had a different outcome...
 
Of course the relevant bits are:
Law 12 - " any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force"
And law 5 - "decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play .............are final."
Anything else is just window dressing.
It doesn't matter what we all think. The LOTG say that he was right. Not that it will stop everyone debating it though lol.
 
I think it was a yellow card pushing a red because yes his foot was in a dangerous position but his were fixed on the ball and Arbeloa was going to challenge for the ball as well, however, I can understand why Mr. Çakır gave a red as his view was not the best as he stood behind the challenge facing Alex Ferguson meaning it would have looked like Serious Foul Play.
 
As SuperMonkey says arbeloa sees nani is going in for the ball but, nani is going for the ball not to endanger anybody i would of gone yellow and good telling off
 
Right, here we go, unfortunately, because of the time differences I couldn't log in here, go on the internet, listen to the radio or watch TV until I had seen the game!

Also, I should put my hand up and say I am a Utd fan - having grown up 20mins from Old Trafford.

Firstly, before I address the Nani card (and I have a tendency to agree that most times he SHOULD be sent off for being Nani) the referee did miss a number of big decisions, or, chose not to give them. Vidic took a two-fisted punch to the side of the head from the goalkeeper, and having watched it a number of times full-speed and slow, I can't see how the goalkeeper would have got anywhere near the ball - even if Vidic wasn;t there, his fists were a good 6 inches below where the ball would be. Should have been a penalty. HOWEVER, in the 'scrum' that is a packed goal area on a corner, i can forgive the ref, the AR AND the extra Assistant for not spotting it.

Secondly, there was a fairly clear handball, definate DOGSO from Raphael that prevented Real from scoring - again, there were three pairs of eyes on this, and noone saw it. When it happened, I thought it was a penalty from the word go.

Without taking the red card into account, I felt the referee had a pretty poor game overall, but then the card unfortunately binned him in my eyes.

Fortunately, I don't get Andy Townshend over here, but I do get ESPN Press Pass, with such luminaries as Tommy Smyth (widda 'y'), Shaka Hislop, Stevel Nicol and Robbie Mustoe. (Must admit, Mustoe is a great pundit!) and I couldn;t believe the tosh spouted with words like 'Violent Conduct' 'Serious Foul Play' although all were in agreement that it should never have been a red etc etc.

Here's what I saw in the game, the ball is dropping a little behind Nani, he jumps UP and attempts to bring it under control with his foot. As far as Nani is concerned, there is no opponent near him so he is perfectly entitled to raise his foot in order to control the ball. He could not have been aware that Arbeloa was approaching from behind, and at speed - therefore it could not have been Serious Foul Play.


Violent Conduct is definately incorrect as it was a challenge for the ball.
It wasn't an 'Excessive Tackle' as Arbeloa had the momentum, and Nani was pretty stationary other than the vertical movement.

Arbeloa has jumped towards Nani and the ball, and got the ball first, but in doing so, has also jumped into Nani's outstretched leg. Note, NOT into the studs, the boot or the foot, but into the side of the lower part of Nani's leg. He has then dropped like a ton of bricks.

Yes, it looked like Nani took a little 'dig' at him, but having just had his outstretched leg clattered by a big defender, I'm not convinced it was an intentional act other than trying to claim a foul.

Now, had Arbeloa gone for the ball with his head, then maybe it would be viewed differently, but the only possible offence I can think it would be is 'Playing in a dangerous manner'. Which would be an IDFK and a YC at worst.

If the same thing happens to me on Sunday, then I would would probably call an IDFK, have a word with the offender (Nani) and ask him to be a bit more aware.

Unfortunately, it did have a huge impact on the game, although I'm not convinced it truly affected the result - Madrid are easily good enough to score twice against an 11-man United, and I felt they could still have done, red card or not.

However, looking at the two goals Madrid scored, having an extra body on the field, Wellbeck or Rooney especially, I don't think would have allowed Modric the space for the shot, and (I forget who it was) the player that crossed it for Ronaldo to score. This is without taking into account the difference it made to the two sides mentally - Madrid were certainly playing at a much quicker pace, and working much harder after the card.

So, while I can always accept a refereeing error, and get on with it, this one in particular DOES leave a sour taste for me. I think this referee simply wasn't up to standard to take charge of a game that 'the world will stop and watch', and I had pretty much already formed that opinion before the red card, which unfortunately affected the game far more than any referee decision should.

With my Utd fan hat on, I worry about the hangover from this disappointment carrying over into the game against Chelsea in the FA Cup.

Come on you Reds!
 
Taking the intent part into consideration, a similar incident happened in the match if you look at it that way. From a corner, the Real Madrid keeper punched the ball away, as well as punching Vidic in the face. Vidic had to receive treatment. So why was this not a red card? It was a red card offence, by endangering his opponents safety by punching him in the face, just the same as Nani's. Both players had eyes on the ball, but both caught the other players, so for the same type of incident, why was he not dealt with? Both Nani and the RM keeper had eyes on the ball only, so why did Nani get sent off and not the keeper? Both endangered the safety of their opponents, so why is it different?
 
lol....totally different scenario I'm afraid. Eboue is the one travelling into Evra and challenging for the ball, leading with his foot, for a ball Evra was going for with his head. In the Utd v RM game, Arbeloa was making a challenge, Nani was trying to control the ball with his feet and was unaware of his presence.

I heard to day that the red card has gone down for Excessive Force, now, can anyone tell me how you can use Excessive Force when trying to control the ball????
 
I'm sorry, it is beyond me how anybody (other than Utd fans!) can see this as anything other than a red card. Going for the ball or not, trying to control the ball or not, its dangerous.

Most r/c tackles are going for the ball...
 
I don't think I'll ever be sold on a red card for Nani for this. Most tackles are dangerous, to an extent, and i don't see how Nani has seriously endangered his opponent when the opponent is the one moving, at speed into the challenge. Careless - certainly, Reckless - possibly Excessive - no way.

Sorry, but you would have to send every GK off for electing to punch the ball in a crowded penalty area, or red card someone for every header that's contested and there's a clash of heads - all of which introduce more risk of injury than Nani did in this situation.

Seriously, wasn't the RM goalkeeper playing dangerously when he punched Vidic in the head? Wasn't Snodgrass (I think it was) playing dangerously with the three or four superb sliding tackles he mad at the weekend?
 
'Taking the intent part into consideration' wrote jojo
We no longer HAVE to take intent into consideration it all about careless, reckless and excessive force, so having watched the incident again I think it was a red card as he did know that there was 21 other players on the pitch and he knew he had to be carefull.
 
I agree, but when I said taking the intent part into consideration, I followed on with another incident, with no intent, and so this is why I said that.
 
Didn't understand the decision at the time, but definately can see why red card was shown. Remember its all about the referee's opinion. We can say it wasn't a red untill the cows come home.

If in the opinion of the referee it is endangering safety, then red card. Simple as that.
 
jojo said:
I still think it was only a caution, and I think that decision put a 'downer' on the game, and ruined the game, I hope something is done about it. I don't think he should've been appointed because he has sent off Terr (v Barcelona last year), Gerrard v Ukraine, Cahill in World Club Final, and Balotelli v Porto, so I think with his record, UEFA could've appointed a better referee. I don't think the score would've been the same if the red card hadn't been given.
Click to expand...

Of those I have only seen the Terry one.

What exactly was wrong with it?

The Nani one might be harsh, but I think the cries of "wrong" and "awful" are wide of the mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top